I think virtually everybody is familiar with the "broken windows" theory of crime prevention made famous by Rudy Giuliani -- the notion that small amounts of disorder (e.g. broken windows) can, over time, foster more crime and that the way to prevent large amounts of crime is to crack down on small things before they snowball.
Well, now some researchers have conducted a series of experiments to test out this theory (hat tip: Ideas Blog). The experiments were small-scale. For example, they left an envelope with a 5 euro bill in it sticking out of a mailbox. People were twice as likely to steal the money if mailbox was covered in graffiti or surrounded by trash (abstract). Both the full paper and the article summarizing it are behind a subscription wall, but The Economist has a good synopsis of the findings here.
None of the experiments involve schools, but they do involve people breaking rules and not following directions -- something that happens an awful lot in some schools. The broken windows theory has received a lot of criticism, but I think a lot of this may be due to the way that policies were enacted rather than the underlying truth of the theory. I'd welcome hearing from somebody who disagrees, but it's hard for me to see the general theory as anything but intuitively true.
If you buy the theory, it leads one to believe that we should implement "zero tolerance" policies in our schools. But such policies have become a lightning rod for criticism. Why? Probably because they're zero tolerance for major infractions like bringing weapons to school and sexual harassment. Kids being suspended or expelled for bringing plastic knives or for kindergartners touching members of the opposite sex in ways they couldn't really comprehend was sexual has led to widespread disgruntlement with such policies.
While weapons and sexual harassment are huge problems and should be dealt with as such, they're far from the largest obstacles to learning on a day-to-day basis in most schools. That honor would go to minor issues like talking in class. I would argue that these are the true "broken windows" of schools.
And I think a lot of teachers know as such. A lot of the discussion amongst teachers in my school centered around relatively minor incidents that they believed served as tipping points in their classroom. For example: a teacher next door to me my first year had a student that was momentarily out of control and clearly crossed the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Just then the Asst. Principal stepped into the room and asked if the teacher needed anything. The teacher replied that they needed the AP to remove the student from the classroom for a few minutes. The AP declined to do so. And from that point forward, students knew they could get away with things that they had previously believed they couldn't.
Now, that's not really a true fit for broken windows theory, but I could tell a thousand other similar stories. The bottom line is that it was quite clear to me that students were more likely to act up when they perceived that such actions were acceptable b/c they seemed to be the norm in the classroom, hallway, cafeteria, etc. As such, it seems that a zero-tolerance policy of some sort is wholly merited. How else to prevent the chaos that reigns in too many (note: "too many" does not imply anywhere near a majority) schools today. But how to implement one?
In other words, can a school implement a zero-tolerance policy in a way that is neither draconian nor militaristic? The closest I've seen to such policies (though I'm not sure they're 100% non-draconian/militaristic) is in the so-called paternalistic schools that David Whitman profiles. The schools go to great lengths to ensure that not a single infraction goes unnoticed, no matter how small. I'm not sure that all schools confronted by discipline problems should (or can) mirror these policies, but I think the theory behind them is sound.
I agree that minor discipline problems (talking when the teacher is lecturing, throwing wads of paper, sassing the teacher) are what really put a roadblock into productive learning in many classrooms. I also agree that when a school demonstrates that they will let even one student get away with this behavior (like your AP example), this sets up all the other children to disobey the rules, reasonably confident they will not be disciplined as well.
In order for schools to really cut down on this misbehavior, all they have to do is start reliably enforcing even the minor rules. Unlike usual "zero tolerance" policies, there does not have to be a suspension or expulsion for each instance of misbehavior - there just needs to be SOME consequence, reliably enforced by everyone from the teachers to the administrators.
We have a no cell phone policy, no sagging policy, and a no hat policy that's written, but not enforced. I used to come down hard on kids who were not my students for these infractions on campus, but after getting no back-up from admin, I (and many of my colleagues) turn a blind eye.
However, in my classroom, students know that I will follow through when I lay down a consequence. I have very few behavior issues in my classroom because as my students put it: ms-teacher don't play.
I think Attorney DC makes the right distinction. The problem with many "zero tolerance" policies is that they provide no way to distinguish between major and minor offenses. The key is, as you said, that small infractions don't go unnoticed, not that they receive the same punishments are major violations.
Zero tolerance policies exist to please the public, not to deal with behavior. These policies are just more lip-service.
Like Ms-Teacher, in my classroom kids know I am serious about behavior, so I have few problems, but my class is always filled with the kids with behavior problems because I am supposedly the guy who can deal with them. This is another problem.
The real problem, like AttornyDC says, is administrators not backing up teachers and being unwilling to enforce the policies they themselves claim we need to adhere to.
If I were a principal, I would have weekly assemblies to go over expectations, and morning teacher meetings to deal with infractions. Neither of these things happen; nor do I expect they happen in many schools.
We need to end lip-service, and begin explicit, obvious, enforcement of policies.
Is there any wonder we are paying fro Alberto Gonzales' lawyer, or that the banking CEOs are still getting their millions? We have a society where no-one is held accountable--except teachers!
Post a Comment